feat: decompose non-answerable unknowns
This commit is contained in:
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@ The engine should ask one question about one primary concept at a time.
|
||||
|
||||
**The reconstruction model may suggest a question, but only the graph-backed deterministic pipeline may select the user-facing question.**
|
||||
|
||||
**A node is only questionable if it is independently answerable.**
|
||||
|
||||
## One-question / one-concept rule
|
||||
|
||||
Every user-facing question should:
|
||||
@@ -72,6 +74,26 @@ For the current scenario, this meant creating child unknowns such as:
|
||||
|
||||
The selector then reaches the first foundational child through prerequisite ordering encoded in the decomposition graph rather than through global scoring changes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Atomicity vs answerability
|
||||
|
||||
These are different reasoning properties.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Atomicity** asks: does this node describe one investigation or several bundled investigations?
|
||||
- **Answerability** asks: even if the wording looks singular, can this node be answered directly without first resolving multiple prerequisite dimensions?
|
||||
|
||||
A node can appear atomic in wording but still fail answerability.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples include broad evaluation containers such as product validation, customer value, business case, technical feasibility, or commercial justification. These often compress several prerequisite investigations into one conclusion-shaped unknown.
|
||||
|
||||
That means atomicity alone is not enough.
|
||||
|
||||
The engine now decomposes whenever either of these is true:
|
||||
|
||||
- the unknown is not atomic
|
||||
- the unknown is not independently answerable
|
||||
|
||||
This prevents a broad container node from becoming the selected question target even when its wording looks grammatically singular.
|
||||
|
||||
## UI result
|
||||
|
||||
The long compound question no longer survives as the first follow-up in the tested path.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user